Forums

OT- North Carolina and Duke in a mess Topic

Duke- Former player Lance Thomas was sued by jewelry store over $97,000 in jewelry that he didn't finish paying for. He put down $30,000 in cash. Where'd this college student get the money? His single mother worked in a Ford factory. Maybe he got a high-paying work-study job in the Duke library.

No. Carolina- While Tyler Hansborough was a student at UNC, they hired his mother as a fundraiser. Really??? Her boyfriend, former UNC quarterback Matt Kupec was instrumental in getting her the $95,000 job. Their relationship wasn't a secret. In fact, she was bypassed for another job because she'd be answering directly to Kupec. So he suggested creating a new position for her instead. Interestingly enough, she took "fundraising trips" to see Tyler play in the ACC and NCAA tournaments, as well to South Bend to see her other son play.

What will the NCAA do? They COULD strip Duke of their championship. They've done it before when ineligible players competed but, in the other cases, the schools lost in the Final Four. But Duke was allowed to keep their 1999 RU status, even after Corey Maggette admitted that he'd accepted money illegally and was ineligible to play. . So, Duke is probably safe this time as well.

UNC will also get off scot-free. They received no punishment for their football academic scandal and that was far worse than giving a job to a player's Mom.

I wonder what the punishment would be if the scandals happened at a less-prestigious school.

First of all I'm not a Duke or NC fan but not sure what exactly was illegal about any of this. In the Duke case, someone has to prove a coach, booster, season ticket holder gave the kid $ 30k. If he got it by some other means it's not the University or NCAA's business. If you check the NC mother, she worked in the Denistry school as a fundraiser not the athletic dept. The NCAA has no control outside the athletic departments and certainly no jurisdiction on where employees travel or where.If you really know NCAA rules for example: it's illegal for a booster to buy a cup of coffee to any family member of any athlete of any sport during recruiting periods. The NCAA is kinda like the IRS and can target anyone at anytime unless they know a school will fight back. I agree that the NCAA only attacks schools that can't defend themselves and will move in when recruiting violations, transcripts, and agent problems are evident.

The more germane issue is that the jeweler effectively provided Thomas with a $67,800 loan – the remaining balance on the purchase.

NCAA rules are clear that a student-athlete can't receive any "extra benefit" based on his celebrity as a player or against future professional earnings.

n this case, did Rafaello & Co. allow a 21-year-old to borrow $67,800 because that 21-year-old was a starter on the eventual national champions and thus considered a potential NBA player who would not only be likely to pay the balance but become a return customer? Is it standard practice to let young people make that substantial of a purchase with just 30 percent down?

If not, Duke could be in trouble.

That could mean Lance Thomas was ineligible by receiving that "extra benefit." If he was ineligible, then every game Duke played from Dec. 21 on could be vacated. That would include the 2010 Final Four, which Duke won, delivering Coach K his fourth national title. And thus Duke would vacate the championship. (It would not be awarded to runner-up Butler, either. There would just be no champion.)

The punishment stage is far down the line. In general, however, the NCAA is adamant that it doesn't want its student-athletes being paid – either in money or goods – by anyone. The NCAA's reasoning for this particular rule is fairly simple: If players could trade on future earnings or celebrity, they'd get deals on everything. A car dealer would gladly offer a future lottery pick the most expensive ride on his lot for $1 down with payments beginning on draft day

Tami Hansborough formerly worked for the Dental School. Then her boyfriend, Matt Kupec, created a new job $95,000 for her in Student Affairs. She was in charge of raising funds from parent groups. So, you're correct, she didn't work for the Athletic Department and the NCAA won't really care about her travels. (except the ones she took to see her son, Tyler, play. The Dental School said that these trips were unauthorized). Providing money or benefits to parents is definitely against NCAA rules.

Tyler Hansborough is from Missouri and his mother was living in Mississippi, where she declared bankruptcy and was sued by the wife of her married boyfriend. She started working for the Dental School just before Tyler had to decide,....."Do I go pro or return for my senior year?"

If I were the NCAA, I'd be asking, "Was the job offer merely an incentive to keep Tyler on campus another year? Was she even qualified for the job? And why would you hire someone with a fresh bankruptcy and moral scandal to represent your Bible Belt school in fundraising?"

The more germane issue is that the jeweler effectively provided Thomas with a $67,800 loan – the remaining balance on the purchase.

NCAA rules are clear that a student-athlete can't receive any "extra benefit" based on his celebrity as a player or against future professional earnings.

n this case, did Rafaello & Co. allow a 21-year-old to borrow $67,800 because that 21-year-old was a starter on the eventual national champions and thus considered a potential NBA player who would not only be likely to pay the balance but become a return customer? Is it standard practice to let young people make that substantial of a purchase with just 30 percent down?

If not, Duke could be in trouble.

That could mean Lance Thomas was ineligible by receiving that "extra benefit." If he was ineligible, then every game Duke played from Dec. 21 on could be vacated. That would include the 2010 Final Four, which Duke won, delivering Coach K his fourth national title. And thus Duke would vacate the championship. (It would not be awarded to runner-up Butler, either. There would just be no champion.)

The punishment stage is far down the line. In general, however, the NCAA is adamant that it doesn't want its student-athletes being paid – either in money or goods – by anyone. The NCAA's reasoning for this particular rule is fairly simple: If players could trade on future earnings or celebrity, they'd get deals on everything. A car dealer would gladly offer a future lottery pick the most expensive ride on his lot for $1 down with payments beginning on draft day

Wouldnt you have to prove that the school was in on it or knew about it?

The more germane issue is that the jeweler effectively provided Thomas with a $67,800 loan – the remaining balance on the purchase.

NCAA rules are clear that a student-athlete can't receive any "extra benefit" based on his celebrity as a player or against future professional earnings.

n this case, did Rafaello & Co. allow a 21-year-old to borrow $67,800 because that 21-year-old was a starter on the eventual national champions and thus considered a potential NBA player who would not only be likely to pay the balance but become a return customer? Is it standard practice to let young people make that substantial of a purchase with just 30 percent down?

If not, Duke could be in trouble.

That could mean Lance Thomas was ineligible by receiving that "extra benefit." If he was ineligible, then every game Duke played from Dec. 21 on could be vacated. That would include the 2010 Final Four, which Duke won, delivering Coach K his fourth national title. And thus Duke would vacate the championship. (It would not be awarded to runner-up Butler, either. There would just be no champion.)

The punishment stage is far down the line. In general, however, the NCAA is adamant that it doesn't want its student-athletes being paid – either in money or goods – by anyone. The NCAA's reasoning for this particular rule is fairly simple: If players could trade on future earnings or celebrity, they'd get deals on everything. A car dealer would gladly offer a future lottery pick the most expensive ride on his lot for $1 down with payments beginning on draft day

Wouldnt you have to prove that the school was in on it or knew about it?

Good question but, in the past, schools have been punished for having ineligible players even if the school was unaware. In the 1970's both Villanova and Western Kentucky were stripped of Final Four appearnances after the stars of both teams took money from agents. I'm sure those schools were unaware.

Duke- Former player Lance Thomas was sued by jewelry store over $97,000 in jewelry that he didn't finish paying for. He put down $30,000 in cash. Where'd this college student get the money? His single mother worked in a Ford factory. Maybe he got a high-paying work-study job in the Duke library.

No. Carolina- While Tyler Hansborough was a student at UNC, they hired his mother as a fundraiser. Really??? Her boyfriend, former UNC quarterback Matt Kupec was instrumental in getting her the $95,000 job. Their relationship wasn't a secret. In fact, she was bypassed for another job because she'd be answering directly to Kupec. So he suggested creating a new position for her instead. Interestingly enough, she took "fundraising trips" to see Tyler play in the ACC and NCAA tournaments, as well to South Bend to see her other son play.

What will the NCAA do? They COULD strip Duke of their championship. They've done it before when ineligible players competed but, in the other cases, the schools lost in the Final Four. But Duke was allowed to keep their 1999 RU status, even after Corey Maggette admitted that he'd accepted money illegally and was ineligible to play. . So, Duke is probably safe this time as well.

UNC will also get off scot-free. They received no punishment for their football academic scandal and that was far worse than giving a job to a player's Mom.

I wonder what the punishment would be if the scandals happened at a less-prestigious school.

i dont want to think of what people would say if this happened at kentucky under calipari. with so many high profile players, at some point, SOMETHING like this basically has to happen, doesn't it? i think its just up to the NCAA to be fair and unbiased, which of course, they are neither.

Duke- Former player Lance Thomas was sued by jewelry store over $97,000 in jewelry that he didn't finish paying for. He put down $30,000 in cash. Where'd this college student get the money? His single mother worked in a Ford factory. Maybe he got a high-paying work-study job in the Duke library.

No. Carolina- While Tyler Hansborough was a student at UNC, they hired his mother as a fundraiser. Really??? Her boyfriend, former UNC quarterback Matt Kupec was instrumental in getting her the $95,000 job. Their relationship wasn't a secret. In fact, she was bypassed for another job because she'd be answering directly to Kupec. So he suggested creating a new position for her instead. Interestingly enough, she took "fundraising trips" to see Tyler play in the ACC and NCAA tournaments, as well to South Bend to see her other son play.

What will the NCAA do? They COULD strip Duke of their championship. They've done it before when ineligible players competed but, in the other cases, the schools lost in the Final Four. But Duke was allowed to keep their 1999 RU status, even after Corey Maggette admitted that he'd accepted money illegally and was ineligible to play. . So, Duke is probably safe this time as well.

UNC will also get off scot-free. They received no punishment for their football academic scandal and that was far worse than giving a job to a player's Mom.

I wonder what the punishment would be if the scandals happened at a less-prestigious school.

i dont want to think of what people would say if this happened at kentucky under calipari. with so many high profile players, at some point, SOMETHING like this basically has to happen, doesn't it? i think its just up to the NCAA to be fair and unbiased, which of course, they are neither.

The more germane issue is that the jeweler effectively provided Thomas with a $67,800 loan – the remaining balance on the purchase.

NCAA rules are clear that a student-athlete can't receive any "extra benefit" based on his celebrity as a player or against future professional earnings.

n this case, did Rafaello & Co. allow a 21-year-old to borrow $67,800 because that 21-year-old was a starter on the eventual national champions and thus considered a potential NBA player who would not only be likely to pay the balance but become a return customer? Is it standard practice to let young people make that substantial of a purchase with just 30 percent down?

If not, Duke could be in trouble.

That could mean Lance Thomas was ineligible by receiving that "extra benefit." If he was ineligible, then every game Duke played from Dec. 21 on could be vacated. That would include the 2010 Final Four, which Duke won, delivering Coach K his fourth national title. And thus Duke would vacate the championship. (It would not be awarded to runner-up Butler, either. There would just be no champion.)

The punishment stage is far down the line. In general, however, the NCAA is adamant that it doesn't want its student-athletes being paid – either in money or goods – by anyone. The NCAA's reasoning for this particular rule is fairly simple: If players could trade on future earnings or celebrity, they'd get deals on everything. A car dealer would gladly offer a future lottery pick the most expensive ride on his lot for $1 down with payments beginning on draft day

Wouldnt you have to prove that the school was in on it or knew about it?

no... if a player is ineligible and the school and coach are cleared of all knowledge and wrong doing (see umass/calipari/whatshisface), the school is held ultimately responsible. NCAA effectively takes this stance because, well, they have no ability to hold anyone else responsible. i think the NCAA is a necessary evil, but i really do wish they would be more consistent on these matters. they effectively destroyed SMU in one of the only 2 high profile death penalties ever, i can see backing off from that, but these littler things, pulling final 4s etc, i don't see how you can pull the one at umass and memphis and NOT pull dukes. good for duke but the NCAA is supposed to treat every program equally.

actually i dont think it really ever made national news, or else it wasn't made a big deal, but UK did have to report a violation similar to the jewelry store thing not long ago. this pizza place was giving UK players free pizza and soda, so sandy bell (head of compliance dept) basically banished the owner from being part of UK sports in any way, and forbid all UK athletes from going there, on top of reporting it to the NCAA. im really not sure where you draw the line - i mean, it doesnt seem fair to strip UK of their title because one of their upperclassmen was one of the guys ate a free slice of pizza a couple years back, but by the letter of the law, i think the NCAA could do it. and therein lies the problem to me - its all so much left to the subjectivity of the NCAA. its tough to do, to nail these things down, by why else does the NCAA exist? i don't think they should make a big deal of it and strip Duke of a title, as much as i might personally enjoy it, but they've ruled out post seasons for simliar things in the past, which i also didn't agree with. they just need to grow some balls and take their stand BEFORE they have a subjective case to look at, and then be consistent in their upholding of their rules.

my biggest problem with the NCAA is, who the hell governs them? the schools i guess could just quit if the NCAA got bad enough, but that would take something really ridiculous, i think. i guess the fans can somewhat discredit them. i mean, in my mind, memphis still lost the championship game by the slimmest of margins. according to the NCAA, they didn't. but when the subject comes up, nobody ever says, yeah that was a great game when kansas had a huge come back to beat nobody. all the websites that count final fours still show memphis as having that one, at least what ive seen. so maybe that is really what matters. and i personally don't have a gripe where the NCAA handed down major penalties to my school (UK got the first death penalty ever in like 55, point shaving i believe, and then banned from the post season in 90 and 91 - amazing how quick they come back from this stuff, but still, those are some serious penalties). but as a basketball fan, im definitely not satisfied with the role they play in the sport - some regulation is needed, obviously (or you will have UCLA all over again), but we just don't have it right yet, IMO...

Posted by psb336 on 10/20/2012 8:56:00 AM (view original):Tami Hansborough formerly worked for the Dental School. Then her boyfriend, Matt Kupec, created a new job $95,000 for her in Student Affairs. She was in charge of raising funds from parent groups. So, you're correct, she didn't work for the Athletic Department and the NCAA won't really care about her travels. (except the ones she took to see her son, Tyler, play. The Dental School said that these trips were unauthorized). Providing money or benefits to parents is definitely against NCAA rules.

Tyler Hansborough is from Missouri and his mother was living in Mississippi, where she declared bankruptcy and was sued by the wife of her married boyfriend. She started working for the Dental School just before Tyler had to decide,....."Do I go pro or return for my senior year?"

If I were the NCAA, I'd be asking, "Was the job offer merely an incentive to keep Tyler on campus another year? Was she even qualified for the job? And why would you hire someone with a fresh bankruptcy and moral scandal to represent your Bible Belt school in fundraising?"

You would want someone with a fresh bankruptcy and moral scandal to represent your school in fundraising because she can come to potential donors representing herself as the mother of a very popular, high-profile player. A WHITE popular, high-profile player, and if you don't think that matters to a lot of wealthy people in the South you haven't spent enough time there. I'm not condoning it, I'm just stating it as a fact. Her qualifications for the job were being Tyler Hansborough's mother. That's all she needs to be an extremely effective fundraiser. I think UNC would be easily able to defend the hire. Paying for trips, maybe not. But the hire is fine, there is a very strong argument to be made that she can be more effective at raising money based solely on being Tyler Hansborough's mother than a person with all the business background in the world.

Bistiza, who you know has always been and will always be at least as important in obtaining employment as how qualified or capable you are. But then, we know how you feel about the real world. You want all people to behave in the way you think is appropriate.

Regardless, the point is that in this case, for fundraising purposes, who you are related to IS a job qualification. Being related to Tyler Hansbrough makes you good at bringing in money. Would you argue that that's not true?